At 01:57 PM 10/15/2002 +0800, Jon Perez wrote:

>The 4th paragraph in this article:
>http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/2001/01/lilly/
>says:
>
>"... With few concurrent users, InterBase is fast on simple
>reads and complex joins, but its performance drops sharply
>under the stress of multiple queries and numerous concurrent
>users.

I haven't a clue where the author got that idea. It's
certainly not my experience. The source may have been
a panel I was on - the other database vendors were claiming
to support thousands of concurrent users - tens of thousands
in the case of MySQL. Those numbers came either from their
imagination or from totally artificially benchmarks. We
don't have benchmarks and I lack that sort of imagination,
so I said that we supported 100's of users quite nicely.

>" Because InterBase uses a nonshared architecture, as
>user numbers increase, it must parcel data into ever-smaller
>partitions, diminishing its performance levels.

That's completely ridiculous. First, we do have a shared
architecture. Second, even in the non-shared classic
architecture, there's no parcelling of data...

>" This major
>flaw will likely be addressed if InterBase attracts skilled
>open-source developers.

Hard to respond to that one - how does one address a non-
existent flaw? As for the skilled developers - I've never
worked with a more skilled group of developers than we have
here now. (With some allowance for Jim, who really sets
of the averages.)

>" However, the program is new to the
>open-source world and still lacks the support of a strong
>developer community."

I don't know what that means...

Regards,

Ann
www.ibphoenix.com
We have answers.